64 or 32 bit installation of Vista? Which way to go?

[ngamer007]

I'll be getting Vista Ultimate next month, and am still bouncing back and forth between whether to install the 32 bit version or the 64 bit version.

I've tried the beta's and rc1/rc2 and I'm very impressed at how many drivers they kept up on. You have to do almost no work to get it up and running. But it may be hard to find 64 bit drivers.

But here's the thing. Almost all drivers will need to be rewritten for Vista anyway, so I'm going to assume that most of them are going to be both 64 and 32.

Will 32 bit .exe binaries have any problems running on the 64 bit OS? From what I understand it will run them just fine.

 

[CSMR]

32 bit applications will run. Only problem apparently is 16 bit programs (e.g. installers). Not sure how many years you have to go back to encounter these. I expect that driver support for 64 bit will be good. Can't be much extra work to make a 64 bit driver if you can already make a 32 bit one can it?

 

[htne]

Originally posted by: CSMR
32 bit applications will run. Only problem apparently is 16 bit programs (e.g. installers). Not sure how many years you have to go back to encounter these. I expect that driver support for 64 bit will be good. Can't be much extra work to make a 64 bit driver if you can already make a 32 bit one can it?

I don't think your assumption is correct. If it were correct, we would already see many more 64 bit drivers.

At this point in time, unless you are going to invest in more than 4 gigabytes of memory, I see no particular advantage to going with 64 bit.

 

[Rilex]

Go 64bit if you want to use Bluray/HDDVD videos in the future. Basically, 64bit is the way to go.

And no Microsoft 64bit OS has contained a 16bit NTVDM/WOW...the CPU doesn't support 16bit mode in 64bit mode.

 

[m21s]

How crippled would you be running primarily Vista 64bit?

Games, and apps and all that.

I'm assuming the game or app would have to support 64bit.

I was wondering this question also, when Vista hits. Get 32 or 64?

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: m21s
How crippled would you be running primarily Vista 64bit?

Games, and apps and all that.

I'm assuming the game or app would have to support 64bit.

I was wondering this question also, when Vista hits. Get 32 or 64?

You don't have to get either, AFAIK the Vista DVD will not only include all editions but bother 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

 

[Rilex]

32bit and 64bit come on separate SKUs. You either buy 32bit or 64bit on a single disc.

Quake III runs just fine on Vista 64bit w/ nVidia drivers No, applications do /not/ have to be 64bit to run under 64bit Windows, but they cannot be 16bit (this is where VPC 2007/DosBox, etc. come into play -- if it is 16bit, it is old enough that you can run it via emulation).

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: htne
I don't think your assumption is correct. If it were correct, we would already see many more 64 bit drivers.

ok

At this point in time, unless you are going to invest in more than 4 gigabytes of memory, I see no particular advantage to going with 64 bit.

There are supposed to be some important security adfvantages too. (Except perhaps in the EU versions.)

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CSMR
There are supposed to be some important security adfvantages too. (Except perhaps in the EU versions.)

Yeah, the "Kernel Patch Lock" is supposed to remain in 64-bit but will not in 32-bit as Microsoft has caved in to Symantec and the other security firms.

I think driver support will be a non-issue a few months down the road after release. Vista is likely to (finally) bring 64-bit mainstream.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Increased RAM is not the only advantage of 64 bit over 32 bit. Yeah, current 64bit CPUs run 32 bit fine, but they were designed around 64 bit. They'll see an advantage running in their own native environment. If you have a 64 bit CPU, then get the 64 bit OS is what I'd advise.

As far as Vista itself...please do advise us on how the activation system works...I'd very much like to see if it will be as limited as people are saying it will be.

 

[the Chase]

Go for the 64-bit version and help spur the changeover to happen quicker.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: ngamer007


But here's the thing. Almost all drivers will need to be rewritten for Vista anyway, so I'm going to assume that most of them are going to be both 64 and 32.

Not really, I managed to install all but video and some audio XP drivers to vista 32-bit.

 

[stash]

Yeah, the "Kernel Patch Lock" is supposed to remain in 64-bit but will not in 32-bit as Microsoft has caved in to Symantec and the other security firms.

No, not at all. PatchGuard was never in x86 and was never intended to be. The architecture does not support it.

Patchguard is a x64 technology only, and has been around since XP x64 and 2003 x64.

 

[Rilex]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: ngamer007


But here's the thing. Almost all drivers will need to be rewritten for Vista anyway, so I'm going to assume that most of them are going to be both 64 and 32.

Not really, I managed to install all but video and some audio XP drivers to vista 32-bit.

WDM support is going to be dropped in RTM, so no more XP/2000 video/audio drivers for the release.

In otherwords, ngamer007 is right

 

[postmortemIA]

raid, ethernet, wireless... etc...zillion other drivers work

good luck with thinking that for example 3com is going to make new driver just for Vista for 5+ years old NIC.

 

[Bateluer]

I'm going to give Vista about 5 to 6 months before I buy it. Let others beat against the bugs and potential driver issues first.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
raid, ethernet, wireless... etc...zillion other drivers work

good luck with thinking that for example 3com is going to make new driver just for Vista for 5+ years old NIC.

Vista might support it out of the box, you know.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: stash
No, not at all. PatchGuard was never in x86 and was never intended to be. The architecture does not support it.

Patchguard is a x64 technology only, and has been around since XP x64 and 2003 x64.

That's true. However, the 32-bit Vista originally had security firms "locked out" as they couldn't access the kernel directly. Microsoft has since caved in and agreed to provide APIs for such access.

 

[Rilex]

No, that is not true Pabster. Patchguard is specifically what security firms were complaining about, and that is only available on x64 and has always been that way. Microsoft, in the EU and Korea, is opening up the API for security firms in x64.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rilex
No, that is not true Pabster. Patchguard is specifically what security firms were complaining about, and that is only available on x64 and has always been that way. Microsoft, in the EU and Korea, is opening up the API for security firms in x64.

Full Details Here.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: stash
No, not at all. PatchGuard was never in x86 and was never intended to be. The architecture does not support it.

Patchguard is a x64 technology only, and has been around since XP x64 and 2003 x64.

That's true. However, the 32-bit Vista originally had security firms "locked out" as they couldn't access the kernel directly. Microsoft has since caved in and agreed to provide APIs for such access.

The article you linked to says nothing about opening direct kernel access in the x86 versions. Because that access is already there, and always has been. The x86 architecture does not support blocking anyone from creating kernel hooks.

The only changes affect x64, since that is the only architecture that supports PatchGuard. And the APIs still do not give direct access to the kernel, nor allow kernel hooking. Nothing is changing with PatchGuard.

 

[memo]

I'd like to dig up this thread again I am facing the same problem here, should I got 32 or 64? I'm a pretty basic user I feel, web surfing gaming etc. I want to try the 64 bit Vista to see if its any faster than 32 but I am walking down a lonely road here with no driver support?